Report from MediaPost
In Brief – A divided federal appeals court has rejected Virginia’s request to lift an injunction blocking its law requiring social-media platforms to verify users’ ages and limit minors under 16 to one hour of daily access unless they have parental consent for more time. SB 854, scheduled to take effect in January, was blocked on First Amendment grounds by US District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles who ruled that the state could not restrict minors’ access to constitutionally protected speech and that the law’s age-verification requirements could impede adults’ access to speech as well. A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to preserve the Giles’ injunction as the legal challenge brought by NetChoice, a trade group representing several of the largest online platforms, proceeds
Context – Regulating social media continues apace globally. Here, we’ll focus on the dynamic in the US, which is uniquely impacted by the First Amendment. Meta’s decision to settle the lawsuit from 48 state AGs and agree to make changes to Instagram and Facebook for users under 16, is the biggest recent development. The agreement is structured to incent Meta and the states to encourage the other social media giants to agree to the same restrictions. In that way, the Meta settlement is a vehicle to bring operational changes like time and notification limits and age checks without the First Amendment headaches that come from government telling huge speech platforms how to operate. Those First Amendment issues are real. Most state social media laws were initially blocked by federal judges, although the trend became mixed and confused in the appeals courts. At this point, panels are ruling for and against similar laws, even within the same circuit. A Supreme Court showdown seemed certain. But if the largest platforms “voluntarily” make changes, the High Court might put off taking up the cases because enforcement is not actually happening. Although with states like California adding to the roster of jurisdictions imposing social media restrictions on teens, the High Court might still feel compelled to rule.